DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11, 18-20, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney (US-5,077,941) in view of Isadahl (US-5,140,776).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Whitney (US-5,077,941) discloses a system for mechanical polishing of a surface of a manufacturing mold, comprising:
a verification apparatus (digital TV camera 58) configured to obtain a surface finish indicator associated with the surface of the manufacturing mold (stamping die 10) to be polished (Fig. 6) (“Commonly available digital TV's 58 have an image plane that is divided into individual light-sensitive "pixels". Typically the pixels are in a square array of 512 pixels in each row, with 512 rows. The electronics associated with such cameras permit a computer to measure the location of light and dark regions on the image plane to an accuracy of one pixel.”) [Whitney; col. 4, lines 49-55] (“The degree of darkness of each pixel is represented as an individual number in the computer memory ranging in value from 0 for pure white to 255 for pure black. Commercial software is available for performing such calculations as processing the image, enhancing it, and comparing the darkness of different pixels.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 1-6] (“Computer 62 interprets the TV view of the surface of the die for the purpose of determining the relative widths of dark and light stripes and the width in inches or mm of each stripe.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 11-14] (“The remaining height of metal yet to be ground is calculated based on the measured dark widths. The relationship for remaining height h, based on measured dark width w, and cutter radius R”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 24-27];
a polishing robot (robot 50) configured to perform a mechanical polishing function on the surface, the mechanical polishing function for removing material from the surface (“A control program in robot controller 64 drives robot 50 and grinder 56 over the surface of die 10 while maintaining the grinding disk 60 at the correct angle and the downward force at the correct level.”) [Whitney; col. 6, lines 18-21]; and
a controller (computer 62) configured to:
receive, from the verification apparatus (digital TV 58), the surface finish indicator (colors of the pixels indicating surface finish) (“Computer 62 interprets the TV view of the surface of the die for the purpose of determining the relative widths of dark and light stripes and the width in inches or mm of each stripe.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 11-14],
obtain a polishing profile for the surface (the profile being pixels representing a number between 0 to 255) (“Computer 62 or another electronic device reads each of the sensors: force sensor, tachometer, TV. Each of these can be bought commercially. The TV 58 typically plugs into a computer and permits the image to be represented in computer memory and displayed on a screen if desired. The degree of darkness of each pixel is represented as an individual number in the computer memory ranging in value from 0 for pure white to 255 for pure black.”) [Whitney; col. 4, line 64 – col. 5, line 4], and send, to the polishing robot, a command to perform the polishing function on the surface based on the obtained surface finish indicator and the reference polishing profile (“The remaining height of metal yet to be ground is calculated based on the measured dark widths. The relationship for remaining height h, based on measured dark width w, and cutter radius R as noted earlier, is h=w.sup.2 /8R. (1) Computer 62 decides how much of the remaining material to grind off during the next pass of the grinding disk over a region of the die, typically 50% to 75% of the remaining amount rather than 100% in order to avoid the risk of grinding off too much.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 23-34].
Whitney fails to disclose obtaining a reference polishing profile for the surface. However, Isadahl (US-5,140,776) teaches that vision systems use an ideal profile as a reference profile to the representative profile (as measured by a vision system 42) in order to guide grinding contrl (“The step of comparing the representative rail profile to an ideal profile is best understood with reference to FIG. 7. In FIG. 7, a representative rail profile R as measured by the vision system 42 and determined by the grinding control computer 62 is depicted in phantom lines.”) [Isadahl; col. 6, lines 8-13]. Since Isadahl is pertinent to vision control systems in automated grinding, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of Whitney who mentions performing calculations and comparisons of the darkness of different pixels in order guide grinding control (“Commercial software is available for performing such calculations as processing the image, enhancing it, and comparing the darkness of different pixels. TV, electronics to plug into the computer, and software may be bought from Imaging Technology, Inc., of Woburn, Mass. The computer 62 also drives the robot controller 64 that operates robot 50.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 4-10], to use a reference profile (i.e. an ideal profile), as taught by Isadahl, for comparison to measure if the grinding is to be stopped (i.e. that the profile has reached it’s ideal profile) (“The amount of material remaining is calculated in step 122. If the grinding is done, step 124, the system is stopped.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 1-3].
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the verification apparatus comprises a vision system (TV camera 58) including at least one camera (camera 58) (“a TV camera 58 to view the surface of the die 12”) [Whitney; col. 4, lines 35-36], and wherein the surface finish indicator comprises an image of the surface (“Commonly available digital TV's 58 have an image plane that is divided into individual light-sensitive "pixels". Typically the pixels are in a square array of 512 pixels in each row, with 512 rows.”) [Whitney; col. 4, lines 49-52].
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the verification apparatus (TV camera 58) comprises a sensor (TV camera 58) and wherein the surface finish indicator comprises data associated with a measured finish quality (surface topography) of the surface (“Computer 62 interprets the TV view of the surface of the die for the purpose of determining the relative widths of dark and light stripes and the width in inches or mm of each stripe.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 11-14] (Figs. 4, 5, 6).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 3 wherein the controller (programmed computer 62) (Fig. 6) is configured to cooperate with the verification apparatus (camera 58) to determine a surface finish level (topography) based on the obtained data associated with the measured finish quality (topography) of the surface (“The remaining height of metal yet to be ground is calculated based on the measured dark widths. The relationship for remaining height h, based on measured dark width w, and cutter radius R as noted earlier, is h=w.sup.2 /8R. (1) Computer 62 decides how much of the remaining material to grind off during the next pass of the grinding disk over a region of the die, typically 50% to 75% of the remaining amount rather than 100% in order to avoid the risk of grinding off too much.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 23-34].
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the polishing robot (robot 50) comprises an end effector (grinder 56) configured to manipulate a polishing tool (grinding disk 60) (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 5 wherein the end effector (grinder 56) comprises a stone holder (grinder 56) configured to manipulate a polishing stone (grinding disk 60) to perform the polishing function on the surface (“A control program in robot controller 64 drives robot 50 and grinder 56 over the surface of die 10 while maintaining the grinding disk 60 at the correct angle and the downward force at the correct level.”) [Whitney; col. 6, lines 19-22].
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the controller is configured send the command based on a comparison between the obtained surface finish indicator and the reference polishing profile (“The path of grinder 52 over die 10 may be calculated based on the shape of the die as originally machined by numerically controlled machine tools. Virtually all dies used in major industries are machined by NC methods. This shape is stored in a computer and may be read into the robot 50 by means that are known to those familiar with the state of the art. Software in the robot controller 64 can then convert this shape into commands to the robot joint motors 66, 68, 70 so as to drive the tip of grinding disk 60 over the die surface while maintaining disk 60 at the correct angle (typically 10.degree.) relative to the die surface. Robot controller 64 through computer 62 responds to force sensor 54 if the force is too low or too high and drives disk 60 toward or away from die 12 respectively, according to the equation.”) [Whitney; col. 6, lines 22-36] (“The amount of material remaining is calculated in step 122. If the grinding is done, step 124, the system is stopped. If not, the desired contact force necessary for the next pass is calculated in step 126, and a grinding pass is commanded to begin in step 128.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 1-6] (Figs. 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 1 wherein: the controller (programmed computer 62) is configured to send the command to perform the polishing function based on a specified surface finish parameter (“The path of grinder 52 over die 10 may be calculated based on the shape of the die as originally machined by numerically controlled machine tools. Virtually all dies used in major industries are machined by NC methods. This shape is stored in a computer and may be read into the robot 50 by means that are known to those familiar with the state of the art. Software in the robot controller 64 can then convert this shape into commands to the robot joint motors 66, 68, 70 so as to drive the tip of grinding disk 60 over the die surface while maintaining disk 60 at the correct angle (typically 10.degree.) relative to the die surface. Robot controller 64 through computer 62 responds to force sensor 54 if the force is too low or too high and drives disk 60 toward or away from die 12 respectively, according to the equation.”) [Whitney; col. 6, lines 22-36] (“The amount of material remaining is calculated in step 122. If the grinding is done, step 124, the system is stopped. If not, the desired contact force necessary for the next pass is calculated in step 126, and a grinding pass is commanded to begin in step 128.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 1-6] (Figs. 8 and 10); and
the polishing robot is configured to perform the polishing function on the surface such that, after the polishing function has been completed, the surface complies with the specified surface finish parameter (“The amount of material remaining is calculated in step 122. If the grinding is done, step 124, the system is stopped. If not, the desired contact force necessary for the next pass is calculated in step 126, and a grinding pass is commanded to begin in step 128.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 1-6] (Figs. 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 18 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 1 wherein:
the controller is configured to send first and second commands to perform first and second polishing functions (coarse and fine grinding) based on a first surface finish parameter and a second surface finish parameter (“At the end of the pass, the inquiry is made in step 132 as to whether the grinding procedure is nearly done: that is, if w is nearly zero. If it is, then the grinder changes to a finer grit in step 134.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 10-14], respectively, the second surface finish parameter being associated with a higher polish (finish polishing) than the first surface finish parameter (“The grinding process controlled by the computer begins with the making of a preliminary grinding pass step 120, FIG. 8, over all or part of the die, using, for example, five pounds of contact force. The amount of material remaining is calculated in step 122. If the grinding is done, step 124, the system is stopped. If not, the desired contact force necessary for the next pass is calculated in step 126, and a grinding pass is commanded to begin in step 128.”) [Whitney; col. 6, line 66 – col. 7, line 6]; and
the polishing robot is configured to perform the first polishing function such that, after the first polishing function has been completed, the surface complies with the first surface finish parameter, and to subsequently perform the second polishing function such that, after the second polishing function has been completed, the surface complies with the second surface finish parameter (polishing proceeds at a relatively coarse polish and then proceeds to finer grit once the first polish parameter is reached) (“The grinding process controlled by the computer begins with the making of a preliminary grinding pass step 120, FIG. 8, over all or part of the die, using, for example, five pounds of contact force. The amount of material remaining is calculated in step 122. If the grinding is done, step 124, the system is stopped. If not, the desired contact force necessary for the next pass is calculated in step 126, and a grinding pass is commanded to begin in step 128.”) [Whitney; col. 6, line 66 – col. 7, line 6].
Regarding claim 19 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 18 wherein: the controller is configured to:
receive a first polishing completion indication from the polishing robot upon completion of the first polishing function (“At less frequent intervals, the TV is commanded to take a picture. At the end of the pass, the inquiry is made in step 132 as to whether the grinding procedure is nearly done: that is, if w is nearly zero. If it is, then the grinder changes to a finer grit in step 134.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 9-14]; and
prevent the polishing robot from performing the second polishing function until the first polishing completion indication has been received (only proceeds to the next step of polishing, using finer grit, when the polishing parameter for surface topography reaches the first value) (“At less frequent intervals, the TV is commanded to take a picture. At the end of the pass, the inquiry is made in step 132 as to whether the grinding procedure is nearly done: that is, if w is nearly zero. If it is, then the grinder changes to a finer grit in step 134.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 9-14].
Regarding claim 20 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 1 wherein:
the verification apparatus (digital camera 58) is configured to obtain first and second surface finish indicators (different pixels having different colors) providing respective indications of a measured finish quality of first and second areas of the surface to be polished (“Computer 62 or another electronic device reads each of the sensors: force sensor, tachometer, TV. Each of these can be bought commercially. The TV 58 typically plugs into a computer and permits the image to be represented in computer memory and displayed on a screen if desired. The degree of darkness of each pixel is represented as an individual number in the computer memory ranging in value from 0 for pure white to 255 for pure black. Commercial software is available for performing such calculations as processing the image, enhancing it, and comparing the darkness of different pixels”) [Whitney; col. 4, line 64 – col. 5, line 6];
the polishing robot (robot 50) is configured to perform first and second polishing functions on the first and second areas of the surface, respectively (“The die is then placed at a known XYZ location in the robot workspace, step 108, and then the program data on the machined shape of the die surface is read, typed, or electronically transferred, step 110, into the robot controller. The data is in the form of XYZ coordinates. The robot's control language is then used, step 112, to program the robot to move the grinder over the die surface in partially overlapping strips in order to pass the grinder tip through coordinate points representing the die surface while keeping the grinding disk at a 10.degree. angle to the surface.”) [Whitney; col. 6, lines 49-60]; and
the controller is configured to: receive, from the verification apparatus, the first and second surface finish indicators (pixel colors), send, to the polishing robot,
a first command to perform the first polishing function on the first area of the surface based on the first surface finish indicator (pixels), and send, to the polishing robot (makes the determination of whether to polish based on both first and second surface finish indicators, and performs a command respective of those values) (“At the end of the pass, the inquiry is made in step 132 as to whether the grinding procedure is nearly done: that is, if w is nearly zero. If it is, then the grinder changes to a finer grit in step 134.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 10-14],
a second command to perform the second polishing function on the second area of the surface based on the second surface finish indicator (makes the determination of whether to polish based on both first and second surface finish indicators, and performs a command respective of those values) (“At the end of the pass, the inquiry is made in step 132 as to whether the grinding procedure is nearly done: that is, if w is nearly zero. If it is, then the grinder changes to a finer grit in step 134.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 10-14].
Regarding claim 28 (Original), Whitney discloses a method for mechanical polishing of a surface of a manufacturing mold, comprising:
obtaining, by a verification apparatus (digital camera 58), a surface finish indicator associated with the surface of the manufacturing mold to be polished (Fig. 6) (“Commonly available digital TV's 58 have an image plane that is divided into individual light-sensitive "pixels". Typically the pixels are in a square array of 512 pixels in each row, with 512 rows. The electronics associated with such cameras permit a computer to measure the location of light and dark regions on the image plane to an accuracy of one pixel.”) [Whitney; col. 4, lines 49-55] (“The degree of darkness of each pixel is represented as an individual number in the computer memory ranging in value from 0 for pure white to 255 for pure black. Commercial software is available for performing such calculations as processing the image, enhancing it, and comparing the darkness of different pixels.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 1-6] (“Computer 62 interprets the TV view of the surface of the die for the purpose of determining the relative widths of dark and light stripes and the width in inches or mm of each stripe.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 11-14] (“The remaining height of metal yet to be ground is calculated based on the measured dark widths. The relationship for remaining height h, based on measured dark width w, and cutter radius R”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 24-27];
receiving, by a controller (computer 62) and from the verification apparatus, the surface finish indicator (colors of the pixels indicating surface finish) (“Computer 62 interprets the TV view of the surface of the die for the purpose of determining the relative widths of dark and light stripes and the width in inches or mm of each stripe.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 11-14];
obtaining, by the controller (computer 62), a polishing profile for the surface (the profile being pixels representing a number between 0 to 255) (“Computer 62 or another electronic device reads each of the sensors: force sensor, tachometer, TV. Each of these can be bought commercially. The TV 58 typically plugs into a computer and permits the image to be represented in computer memory and displayed on a screen if desired. The degree of darkness of each pixel is represented as an individual number in the computer memory ranging in value from 0 for pure white to 255 for pure black.”) [Whitney; col. 4, line 64 – col. 5, line 4]; and
sending, by the controller and to a polishing robot (robot 50), a command to perform the polishing function on the surface based on the obtained surface finish indicator and the reference polishing profile (“The remaining height of metal yet to be ground is calculated based on the measured dark widths. The relationship for remaining height h, based on measured dark width w, and cutter radius R as noted earlier, is h=w.sup.2 /8R. (1) Computer 62 decides how much of the remaining material to grind off during the next pass of the grinding disk over a region of the die, typically 50% to 75% of the remaining amount rather than 100% in order to avoid the risk of grinding off too much.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 23-34]; and
performing, by the polishing robot, a mechanical polishing function on the surface, the mechanical polishing function removing material from the surface (“The remaining height of metal yet to be ground is calculated based on the measured dark widths. The relationship for remaining height h, based on measured dark width w, and cutter radius R as noted earlier, is h=w.sup.2 /8R. (1) Computer 62 decides how much of the remaining material to grind off during the next pass of the grinding disk over a region of the die, typically 50% to 75% of the remaining amount rather than 100% in order to avoid the risk of grinding off too much.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 23-34].
Whitney fails to disclose obtaining a reference polishing profile for the surface. However, Isadahl (US-5,140,776) teaches that vision systems use an ideal profile as a reference profile to the representative profile (as measured by a vision system 42) in order to guide grinding contrl (“The step of comparing the representative rail profile to an ideal profile is best understood with reference to FIG. 7. In FIG. 7, a representative rail profile R as measured by the vision system 42 and determined by the grinding control computer 62 is depicted in phantom lines.”) [Isadahl; col. 6, lines 8-13]. Since Isadahl is pertinent to vision control systems in automated grinding, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of Whitney who mentions performing calculations and comparisons of the darkness of different pixels in order guide grinding control (“Commercial software is available for performing such calculations as processing the image, enhancing it, and comparing the darkness of different pixels. TV, electronics to plug into the computer, and software may be bought from Imaging Technology, Inc., of Woburn, Mass. The computer 62 also drives the robot controller 64 that operates robot 50.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 4-10], to use a reference profile (i.e. an ideal profile), as taught by Isadahl, for comparison to measure if the grinding is to be stopped (i.e. that the profile has reached it’s ideal profile) (“The amount of material remaining is calculated in step 122. If the grinding is done, step 124, the system is stopped.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 1-3].
Regarding claim 29 (Original), Whitney discloses a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon (on the controller 62 of Whitney), the instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform a computer-implemented method for mechanical polishing of a surface of a manufacturing mold, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a verification apparatus (camera 58), a surface finish indicator associated with the surface of the manufacturing mold to be polished; receiving, by a controller and from the verification apparatus, the surface finish indicator (Fig. 6) (“Commonly available digital TV's 58 have an image plane that is divided into individual light-sensitive "pixels". Typically the pixels are in a square array of 512 pixels in each row, with 512 rows. The electronics associated with such cameras permit a computer to measure the location of light and dark regions on the image plane to an accuracy of one pixel.”) [Whitney; col. 4, lines 49-55] (“The degree of darkness of each pixel is represented as an individual number in the computer memory ranging in value from 0 for pure white to 255 for pure black. Commercial software is available for performing such calculations as processing the image, enhancing it, and comparing the darkness of different pixels.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 1-6] (“Computer 62 interprets the TV view of the surface of the die for the purpose of determining the relative widths of dark and light stripes and the width in inches or mm of each stripe.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 11-14] (“The remaining height of metal yet to be ground is calculated based on the measured dark widths. The relationship for remaining height h, based on measured dark width w, and cutter radius R”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 24-27];
obtaining, by the controller, a polishing profile for the surface (the profile being pixels representing a number between 0 to 255) (“Computer 62 or another electronic device reads each of the sensors: force sensor, tachometer, TV. Each of these can be bought commercially. The TV 58 typically plugs into a computer and permits the image to be represented in computer memory and displayed on a screen if desired. The degree of darkness of each pixel is represented as an individual number in the computer memory ranging in value from 0 for pure white to 255 for pure black.”) [Whitney; col. 4, line 64 – col. 5, line 4];
sending, by the controller and to a polishing robot, a command to perform the polishing function on the surface based on the obtained surface finish indicator and the polishing profile (“The remaining height of metal yet to be ground is calculated based on the measured dark widths. The relationship for remaining height h, based on measured dark width w, and cutter radius R as noted earlier, is h=w.sup.2 /8R. (1) Computer 62 decides how much of the remaining material to grind off during the next pass of the grinding disk over a region of the die, typically 50% to 75% of the remaining amount rather than 100% in order to avoid the risk of grinding off too much.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 23-34]; and
performing, by the polishing robot, a mechanical polishing function on the surface, the mechanical polishing function removing material from the surface (“The remaining height of metal yet to be ground is calculated based on the measured dark widths. The relationship for remaining height h, based on measured dark width w, and cutter radius R as noted earlier, is h=w.sup.2 /8R. (1) Computer 62 decides how much of the remaining material to grind off during the next pass of the grinding disk over a region of the die, typically 50% to 75% of the remaining amount rather than 100% in order to avoid the risk of grinding off too much.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 23-34].
Whitney fails to disclose obtaining a reference polishing profile for the surface. However, Isadahl (US-5,140,776) teaches that vision systems use an ideal profile as a reference profile to the representative profile (as measured by a vision system 42) in order to guide grinding contrl (“The step of comparing the representative rail profile to an ideal profile is best understood with reference to FIG. 7. In FIG. 7, a representative rail profile R as measured by the vision system 42 and determined by the grinding control computer 62 is depicted in phantom lines.”) [Isadahl; col. 6, lines 8-13]. Since Isadahl is pertinent to vision control systems in automated grinding, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of Whitney who mentions performing calculations and comparisons of the darkness of different pixels in order guide grinding control (“Commercial software is available for performing such calculations as processing the image, enhancing it, and comparing the darkness of different pixels. TV, electronics to plug into the computer, and software may be bought from Imaging Technology, Inc., of Woburn, Mass. The computer 62 also drives the robot controller 64 that operates robot 50.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 4-10], to use a reference profile (i.e. an ideal profile), as taught by Isadahl, for comparison to measure if the grinding is to be stopped (i.e. that the profile has reached it’s ideal profile) (“The amount of material remaining is calculated in step 122. If the grinding is done, step 124, the system is stopped.”) [Whitney; col. 7, lines 1-3].
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney (US-5,077,941) in view of Isadahl (US-5,140,776), and further in view of Queck (US-2016/0303701).
Regarding claim 21 (Original), Whitney discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the polishing robot comprises a plurality of polishing robots.
However, using multiple polishing robots (34, 36) is known, as taught by Queck (US-2016/0303701), in order to simultaneously and efficiently process workpieces (Fig. 9) (“In FIG. 9, one lite is present at the seaming station and both robot arms work on the lite simultaneously to seam different portions of the lite.”) [Queck; paragraph 0032]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the polishing robot of Whitney in order to double the amount of work being done at a single time, as taught by Queck, so that the work is done more efficiently [Queck; paragraph 0032].
Regarding claim 22 (Original), Whitney, as modified by Queck, discloses the system of claim 21 wherein: the plurality of polishing robots are configured to perform a plurality of polishing functions on the surface (each performing a respective polishing function amounting to a plurality of functions); and
the controller is configured to:
receive, from the verification apparatus, the surface finish indicator, and send, to the plurality of polishing robots, a plurality of commands to cooperate to perform the plurality of polishing functions on the surface based on the surface finish indicator (“The remaining height of metal yet to be ground is calculated based on the measured dark widths. The relationship for remaining height h, based on measured dark width w, and cutter radius R as noted earlier, is h=w.sup.2 /8R. (1) Computer 62 decides how much of the remaining material to grind off during the next pass of the grinding disk over a region of the die, typically 50% to 75% of the remaining amount rather than 100% in order to avoid the risk of grinding off too much.”) [Whitney; col. 5, lines 23-34].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious , in combination with all other claim limitations, “compare, using a machine learning-based comparator, the obtained surface finish indicator with the reference polishing profile; and generate the command based at least in part on a result of the comparison using the machine learning-based comparator.”
Claim 23, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 24-26, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious “the controller is configured to: receive, from the verification apparatus, the plurality of surface finish indicators, send, to the plurality of polishing robots, a plurality of commands to perform the plurality of polishing functions on the plurality of areas of the surface based on the plurality of surface finish indicators.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tegoeh (US-2018/0056480) is pertinent to a reference profile (“predetermined profile”) in order to guide grinding control, as in claim 1. US-2015/0099425, US-20040102136, US-2002/0072297, US-2020/0269439 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights